America's puritanical streak goes only so far. Today, a US appeals court vaporized the $550,000 fine the FCC famously slapped on CBS for showing the country a majority of Janet Jackson's right breast.
At halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl, as he warbled "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song," pop prince Justin …

COMMENTS

Page:

What a bunch of tits

I can't remember the exact dates but I seem to remember the Daughters of the American Revolution had the nipples of all the fawns and nymphs in Disney's Fantasia banned. I think I am correct in saying Fantasia was delayed from being released in the thirties until after the war because hundreds ofpeople with erasers were rubbing out nipples from every one of thousands of frames to conform with America's ridiculous prudishness. After all it's not as if Janet jackson is the only benippled female in the states, all mammals have them, it's a bit surprising the gods and cats don't have to wear little bras to cover there nipples.

another important item

The article misses the bit where the court noted that most of the complaints were copies of the same form letter from one single fundie group, and that pretty much nobody else complained, and basically said "we're ignoring the sheep that can't compose their own complaint letter"

'rithmatic

Nine Sixteenths was Long Enough...

Many are discounting such a short showing, but I am here to tell you that was more than enough time for me to...well..I'm not going to say because this is a public forum, but I think you get the idea...

@ROIsen

Americans Prudish?

1/2 a second showing a baby-feeder vs an entire song, aimed largely at under-age children, about getting someone ready for sex.

"I'm gonna get you nekkid by the end of this song - oops, I didn't really mean it, no really please don't fine me for doing what I just said I'd do!"

I see a Reg article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/registrars_cater_to_steroids_sellers/) implying internet sites should conform to US law, despite being a global media. How about inciting statutory rape?

Forget the nudity, fine 'em for broadcasting the song!

Before I'm jumped on for being a heavy-handed censor - I'm merely pointing out that stage performers and large corporations are making money from promoting what is an illegal activity for a large proportion of their market.

Government and regulation are no longer about doing the right thing, they are merely about managing the media.

People in Europe were dumbstruck...

...at the reaction. I mean, there are about as many boobs in the world as there are humans (yeah I know some girls are still young but there are enough man-boobs to make up for that). Looking at boobs has been shown to "lower blood pressure" among other things... though clearly not for the prudes. http://www.crazynews.net/dp/1-8.htm

Here's a nice close up of a pair of great tits to improve your health:

Lets face it...

The Sepos are a bunch of hypocrites. How many of them attend church then go out and rent/buy/download porn, buy all manner of marital aids and lingerie. And yet they will even fuzz out the top end of a butt crack or even people in their underwear while at the same time showing people blowing up. It is pathetic.

And as for Janet Jackson, it was justa publicity stunt. She used her saggingb milksack to try to revive her sagging crapsack of a career. Didn't help much though.

Compare it to this...

In Malta, a dancer had a "wardrobe malfunction" in front of 50 heads of state and truckloads of TV cameras filming the whole thing for the commonwealth countries. Barely anyone batted an eyelid, and the reaction from everyone (except perhaps Fiona) was a quick chuckle then everyone forgot about it, despite Malta being one of the most conservative countries in Europe.

I guess that depends on the context

Many moons ago, when Alex Hailey's "Root's" came out, I distinctly recall quite a bit of boobage bouncing about, but that apparently was allowed to pass the censors because of historical accuracy.

What Mr. Timberlake coined a "wardrobe malfunction", at least from my recollection, looked intentional. However when Lucy Lawless had an honest to god "malfunction" and they flopped out above her costume, when she raised her arms, after singing the National Anthem, one could tell that clearly wasn't intentional and I vaguely recall her apologizing afterwards.

Personally, I don't see what the ruckus is all about as there have certainly been much more risque' things broadcast over the public airwaves, during "family time". But is it worth a half mil in fines? Nah. But I do believe Mr. Timberlake deserves a punch to the neck for the assumption that the most of the American public would be that stupid to believe such a steaming load of crap, in his assertion that it was a "malfunction".

I chose Paris because even she isn't quite that stupid... Close but not quite.

Americanistan

yup

hmm

While complaining about Janet (a boob at the best of times) no-one complained about the erectile disfunction products that were pushed in every commercial break and as someone pointed out at the time, no kid ever went to his parents what's that bouncy thing where as I'll bet a mighty 3p that a lot said "Daddy, daddy , what's erectile disfunction"

I just realised something

nine sixteenths

Lucky it was nine sixteenths and not eight sixteenths as then it could have been deemed to be an illegal subliminal image in the UK!

(Tech note: anyone remember the BBC computer series from ~15 years ago where they provided extra info just after after the credits in aroudn 10secs that was designed to be VCR-ed and then replayed by stepping through frame by frame ... until it was pointed out that deliberately introducing images of a half second or less was banned in the UK)

Puritans...

This is just dumb, but understandable since the nation was founded by our rejected prudes. I saw a bra advert on Spanish TV a few weeks ago, which contained raw breast action for about 5 seconds in the middle of a weekday afternoon. I doubt any Spanish people even noticed.

@P. Lee

Well said, I am fed up of all the cr@p that the music industry can get away with singing. Most 'urban' music sings about acts that are far beyond the stuff the new porn laws ban and this is marketed at kids.

Sexist racists

The lot of them.

I physically felt ill watching The Hoff running on the beach, topless mind you, man boobs a bouncing. No fines from the FCC for that show though. But a brief glimpse of a black girls baby feeder and everyone is up in arms.

Typical Americans, wanted independence to stop slavery etc but their attitude is still of their (former) British overlords. Might as well go back under colonial rule.

How time flies...

There's hope for America yet. ®

No there isn't.

500,000 phoned to complain about 1 sixteenth of a second. Eh....

Who were they, people from the bible belt???? In which case what were they doing watching the show. It is a western event filled with debauchery that is the pro football circuit, with it's false idols and bright and eluring showmanship. Semi naked ladies dancing at the side of the pitch.

Apart from that the fact it went to court for something in 2004.... 4 years ago. That sums up how much hope there is for america.

Darwin wins

.2 % of a country's population signing such nonsense is a lot !

But, looking at the positive angle, if they are so shocked at something that used to be present (and permanent) even on some country money bills (100 french francs), there's actually not any chance they'll give birth during their life time.

Class Act ???

Cum again

"Malfunction"...

...my arse. Why was she wearing a *decorative* nipple shield if she wasn't expecting the bra cup to get dislodged?

Not that it's a deal of any size whatsoever, since she *was* wearing a nipple shield (as far as I can remember, or she has a verrry strange nipple...). There are smaller bikinis in many moving picture productions that are allowed to be shown pre-watershed.

@AC

Of course it wasn't a "malfunction."

I think the reason that it ended up being such a big deal was partly because people (meaning the FCC) felt insulted when they were asked to believe it was all an accident. The "wardrobe malfunction" statement was what enraged the public and the FCC. And this is of course why the decision was overturned--the punishment didn't match the actual crime.

I recall a lawsuit many years back where a woman subverted the non-spill lid of a coffee cup at a drive-through window, decanted the coffee onto her lap, and then turned around and sued McDonald's because--gasp--the coffee was hot and burned her. McDonald's was fined a huge sum (later greatly reduced) by the jury not because the woman's case was so strong, but because the McDonald's law team was so insulting and abrasive.

If Jackson and Timberlake had just come clean and admitted that they thought it wouldn't be a big deal, and they thought the nipple shield was going to be enough, it would have all blown over. But they had to be dicks about the whole thing.